If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

ALTER2EGO -to- SKAPE PHIN:
Sorry, but I don't do links. I prefer that others briefly quote what they feel is documentary evidence. In this instance, you are attempting to present proof that organic/macroevolution is the lifeline of modern medicine. I say it is not and that organic/macroeveolution has no connection with what I suspect you are bringing to the table: Darwinian Medicine.

FYI: Whenever I present evidence in my posts, you will see me quoting my source briefly by giving an excerpt of the points I want to prove. Only then will I provide a weblink at the end of the brief quotation. In that way, I can't be accused of plagiarism, and I enable others to go read the entire document if they choose to. A weblink by itself is a no, no.

ALTER2EGO -to- GONZO:
Until you or someone else can prove the theory of evolution is the explanation for the existence of all of the forms of life on this earth, your opinions and the opinions/speculations of pro-evolution scientists are just that: opinions. Since everybody on this planet has an opinion, why should yours or anybody elses be placed above mine? The only thing that can trump an opinion is a fact/evidence to the contrary. The scientific facts/evidence debunk macroevolution theory.

ALTER2EGO -to- SKAPE PHIN:
Why not? Because it happens to point up the logical fallacy you used when you argued that everything in creation is God? Since when did the created things become the Creator? Let me know.

ALTER2EGO -to- SKAPE PHIN:The Builder Metaphor is the same one you used when you claimed everything in existence--which were clearly created--are God. Therefore, my "builder metaphor" stands. The house was created and the furnishings within the house were created. So using your logic that the universe and everything else is God who created them, one could argue that the house and its furnishings are therefore the human who likewise created them.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I never used a Builder Metaphor.

When a woman gives birth to child, does she build it? Or does it come from her? Her child is comprised of not only the mother, but also the father, yet the child was not a "creation" of the father and mother, but rather a product - an extension of their own being. This is how nature works.

We come OUT OF the world, not IN TO the world.

And if you want to see evidence of an organism that is created by entities within itself, you need not look any further than yourself. You are comprised of systems within systems. Each cell in your body works together to create the form that is you. Yet, you did not create each cell, did you? So how would that be any different than viewing you as a "cell" in a larger organism that we shall call God?

Fact is, if you use the argument that for every thing that is built, there must be a designer and builder, you will always run into the problem that the designer and builder would in turn need a designer / builder to build IT. How far back does that go? And if you say, the builder / designer built itself or was always built, you are essentially defeating your own logic.

ALTER2EGO -to- SKAPE PHIN:
Sorry, but I don't do links. I prefer that others briefly quote what they feel is documentary evidence. In this instance, you are attempting to present proof that organic/macroevolution is the lifeline of modern medicine. I say it is not and that organic/macroeveolution has no connection with what I suspect you are bringing to the table: Darwinian Medicine.

FYI: Whenever I present evidence in my posts, you will see me quoting my source briefly by giving an excerpt of the points I want to prove. Only then will I provide a weblink at the end of the brief quotation. In that way, I can't be accused of plagiarism, and I enable others to go read the entire document if they choose to. A weblink by itself is a no, no.

Oh, I see, I suppose it stands to reason that someone who refutes evolution is also one who does not like to read, but rather likes all of their information to be filtered and distilled into an easily consumed soundbyte, devoid of subtlety or context. Sorry, I'm not going down this rabbit hole. Good day!

ALTER2EGO -to- SKAPE PHIN:
Sorry, but I don't do links. I prefer that others briefly quote what they feel is documentary evidence. In this instance, you are attempting to present proof that organic/macroevolution is the lifeline of modern medicine. I say it is not and that organic/macroeveolution has no connection with what I suspect you are bringing to the table: Darwinian Medicine.

FYI: Whenever I present evidence in my posts, you will see me quoting my source briefly by giving an excerpt of the points I want to prove. Only then will I provide a weblink at the end of the brief quotation. In that way, I can't be accused of plagiarism, and I enable others to go read the entire document if they choose to. A weblink by itself is a no, no.

And of course, a document written by hundreds of unknown authors over the period of several hundred years translated multiple times from divergent languages is not an opinion, but FACT.

This is how all these debate usually go.

Gotta love the logic utilized by Creationists and Biblical Literalists...

ALTER2EGO -to- SKAPE PHIN:
Actually, the Judeo-Christian Bible was written thousands of years ago. What makes the Bible unique among all other religious books is that it presents evidence of being written by divine inspiration of God. The evidence is in the form of almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies.

The Bible being translated multiple times from "divergent languages" is your opinion. You presented no evidence that the language used in the original writings of the Bible was "divergent." I will watch for your evidence along that line.

ALTER2EGO -to- SKAPE PHIN:
Actually, the Judeo-Christian Bible was written thousands of years ago. What makes the Bible unique among all other religious books is that it presents evidence of being written by divine inspiration of God. The evidence is in the form of almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies.

The Bible being translated multiple times from "divergent languages" is your opinion. You presented no evidence that the language used in the original writings of the Bible was "divergent." I will watch for your evidence along that line.

Interesting how you claim that retroactively fulfilled prophecies are evidence of the divinely inspired nature of the Bible. Its kind of easy to "fulfill" a prophecy when you already know what the prophecy was. It doesn't take much effort to get an article written years ago with some prediction and then write an update that says "And it happened", even if it didn't. That is precisely what the authors of the New Testament did. They knew about this prophecy, and they filled in the details to turn an ordinary man and teacher into THE Son of God.

It is unfortunate that such manipulations by the authors of the New Testament completely hijacked Jesus' original message and intent, but it is what it is.

And also, the many translations of the Bible are not my "opinion", it is fact. The Bible is a Frankenstein document, comprised of documents whose original languages vary greatly, from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek and so forth. It is believed that parts of the New Testament we have today were based off a second translation after the original has been lost for all time. So you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation in some cases.

If you speak more than one language, as I do, you will know how meaning can be altered drastically when translated. It is impossible to create a word for word translation of a document of that magnitude while retaining all the original meaning and subtext of the original text.

When a woman gives birth to child, does she build it? Or does it come from her? Her child is comprised of not only the mother, but also the father, yet the child was not a "creation" of the father and mother, but rather a product - an extension of their own being. This is how nature works.

ALTER2EGO -to- SKAPE PHIN:
Now you're dodging the issue that you raised when you said everything in existence does not require God to create them because all created things are actually God. I don't care how many different scenarios of the "Builder Metaphor" you present. This one with the woman and child is just another builder metapor that you refuse to recognize as such. Below is your comment that started this entire debate between us.

Originally Posted by SkapePhin

I think many people, both theists and atheists, view this thing from the wrong angle. They view it as if the universe is external to them. That God is external to them. However, when you look at everything in totality from a critical point of view, the interconnectedness of the entire system becomes quite clear. God is not something external, not some guy in the sky making creatures in his shop, but rather, that this entire universe, and every spec of matter and energy, both animate and otherwise, IS God.

ALTER2EGO -to- SKAPE PHIN:
Using your logic that the entire universe and everything in existence are part and parcel god, let's apply it to the woman and child you are now presenting. When your logic is applied in this example, we wind with this: The child is the woman because the child came from the woman. Likewise, since everything in existence came from God, everything in existence is God. That's your logic, not mine.

ALTER2EGO -to- SKAPE PHIN:
Now you're dodging the issue that you raised when you said everything in existence does not require God to create them because all created things are actually God. I don't care how many different scenarios of the "Builder Metaphor" you present. This one with the woman and child is just another builder metapor that you refuse to recognize as such. Below is your comment that started this entire debate between us.

ALTER2EGO -to- SKAPE PHIN:
Using your logic that the entire universe and everything in existence are part and parcel god, let's apply it to the woman and child you are now presenting. When your logic is applied in this example, we wind with this: The child is the woman because the child came from the woman. Likewise, since everything in existence came from God, everything in existence is God. That's your logic, not mine.

When we look at genetics, the child IS the woman... That is precisely my point. When we look at nature, that's what we see. The child IS the combination of genes provided by the man and woman. So it is not wrong to say that the child IS the woman, and the woman IS the child. The genes in the child are the SAME genes found within the man and woman.

It would be, however, wrong to say the woman BUILT the child. The child is not comprised of parts not found within its parents.

When you build a house, you must get pieces from external sources to create the objects that comprise it. This is not so with birth and life. When one gives birth, it is internal process wherein the new life is comprised of the elements of the parents, not from an external source.

I am beginning to believe that there is a breakdown in communication here. I feel that our definition of "God" might be the source of the problem.

To be clear, I do not believe that "God" is some sentient, omnipotent being that sits around in some elsewhere putting people together and planning out goals for them. My concept of God is that God is the universe, and the universe is God. It is not, in of itself, a sentient being with its own personality and concept of mind. God is not separate from us, and by "us", I mean all life, all energy, all matter and all of existence.